(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

While I believe in God, I nevertheless disagree to some degree with the logic of this post.

1. I believe people can separate what they believe is "evil", and define it without the existence of God.

2. Isn't that like saying that the existence of God incites foolish choices? Only without God can we allow evolution to assist us in determining the best (most survivable) course of action?

3. Even if existence should eventually be no more, it would still have purpose for as long as it existed. It is simply better if that purpose is perpetual.

4. Most atheists would simply say, "C'est la vie."

5. I would have to research that a bit more to comment.

6. See response to #1.

7. Another I would have to research a bit more to comment.

Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

Your threads just get more idiotic.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

Not necessarily infinite regress, but is that why you believe in God, because you don't like the alternative?

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

1. So you basically admit humans are morons incapable creating laws and therefore have no brains. We follow what we are given, predetermined.

2. Only atheists like Sam Harris believe in no free will, just like Christian Calvinists. If anything, a predetermined path is an argument for God.

3. Maybe not objective, but subjective.

4. How so?

5. Correct, just like doctrines. After all, salvation by works was the original salvation thing, but a man named Martin Luther came and if it weren't for him, we'd still be run by the Catholics and believe one MUST do good works to enter heaven. So Christians change their dogma over time.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

Well I hope not, and I'm an atheist. How is that?

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

Yeah, that one I agree with. And it sucks. But I won't start believing in God just because the belief offers me an ideal version of reality that is just a fake.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

And that one is very nice.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

Not necessarily infinite regress, but is that why you believe in God, because you don't like the alternative?

Does the truth mean nothing to you?

I believe there must be an infinite regress if God doesn't exist. There can't be an uncaused first cause that caused everything else by chance. Disagree?

I value the truth over anything else. I'll say here and now that if there is sufficient evidence showing that atheism is more likely true I'll become an atheist.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

Not necessarily infinite regress, but is that why you believe in God, because you don't like the alternative?

Does the truth mean nothing to you?

I believe there must be an infinite regress if God doesn't exist. There can't be an uncaused first cause that caused everything else by chance. Disagree?

I do disagree. It seems the energy that makes up atoms is infinite and just changes forms. Science isn't my strong suit but assuming everything has a cause just because it's the norm seems unreasonable.

I value the truth over anything else. I'll say here and now that if there is sufficient evidence showing that atheism is more likely true I'll become an atheist.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

I have already taken my pick.

Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

Not necessarily infinite regress, but is that why you believe in God, because you don't like the alternative?

Does the truth mean nothing to you?

I believe there must be an infinite regress if God doesn't exist. There can't be an uncaused first cause that caused everything else by chance. Disagree?

I do disagree. It seems the energy that makes up atoms is infinite and just changes forms. Science isn't my strong suit but assuming everything has a cause just because it's the norm seems unreasonable.

This is pretty heavy to try and explain but here goes:

Any outcome that occurs by chance must exist as a probability. If there was never any probability of an outcome occurring in the first place, this outcome would be impossible to occur by chance.

Any uncaused first cause must have an innate probability of some outcome to occur by chance. Given an infinite amount of chances, any outcome with a probability greater than 0 will inevitably happen. Once this outcome is inevitably reached, the amount of preceding trials or fluctuations leading up to this outcome is quantifiable back to point 0. If something is quantifiable back to point 0, it has a beginning. Nothing can be eternal and have a beginning. Therefore an uncaused first cause could not have caused anything by chance because anything uncaused must either be beginningless (eternal) or not exist. Does that make sense? I can try explaining it another way if not.

Does the same situation apply for God? No because if something is caused by will it wasn't an inevitability. So whatever outcome is reached wouldn't be necessarily quantifiable.

I value the truth over anything else. I'll say here and now that if there is sufficient evidence showing that atheism is more likely true I'll become an atheist.

Those two sentences mean different things. Anyway, they're only true for a godless universe if your god is the only possible source of morality, subjective or otherwise, which he isn't.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

I'm not sure why that is somehow at odds with the idea of free will. Is your brain chemistry not a part of you?

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

I'll concede both of these. So what? The universe is cruel and uncaring. So we should all just believe in a god to make ourselves feel better?

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

This doesn't make any sense. Please clarify.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

In what context? You need a god to tell you that love is better than hatred? I bet you don't. Go ahead and explain why love is better than hatred.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

A claim you continually make and yet cannot actually support with anything other than your own say so.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Any uncaused first cause must have an innate probability of some outcome to occur by chance. Given an infinite amount of chances, any outcome with a probability greater than 0 will inevitably happen. Once this outcome is inevitably reached, the amount of preceding trials or fluctuations leading up to this outcome is quantifiable back to point 0. If something is quantifiable back to point 0, it has a beginning. Nothing can be eternal and have a beginning. Therefore an uncaused first cause could not have caused anything by chance because anything uncaused must either be beginningless (eternal) or not exist. Does that make sense?

No, that is complete and utter nonsense, full of false and unquantifiable premises and absolutes. Word salad.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Certainly evil exists. Acts which are detrimental to the survival as a species are evil. Many of these acts are so strongly disapproved of that they are considered crimes against humanity. We are social creatures and, in large part, have a reasonable level of empathy with others. Anything that causes hurt to one member engenders a response by the community as well. An extreme lack of empathy that allows, even encourages acts that harm other with no purpose are abhorrent to us as a species and we define that as evil. Murder, theft, rape (for the most part) are considered evil since they damage the community as well as the individual. We need a certain level of order to survive and get along together as a species. Our shared moral imperatives to survive as a species have helped make that possible. If you cannot understand that then I assure you that you don't need God, you just need a good dose of empathy. As I remember, that's kind of what Christ's message was to his disciples. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Excellent advice that most so-called followers of Christ don't follow.

Those two sentences mean different things. Anyway, they're only true for a godless universe if your god is the only possible source of morality, subjective or otherwise, which he isn't.

The meaning follows in context. God can only be the only source of objective morality.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

I'm not sure why that is somehow at odds with the idea of free will. Is your brain chemistry not a part of you?

Free will is something that isn't determinant.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

I'll concede both of these. So what? The universe is cruel and uncaring. So we should all just believe in a god to make ourselves feel better?

No, just stating that it's baggage as mentioned in the title.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

This doesn't make any sense. Please clarify.

"Truth" is cognitive and abstract. Logic is grounded in truth. If whatever mental reality is emergent (from the material) then cognitive and abstract thoughts - including any notion of truth - is illusory and subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

In what context? You need a god to tell you that love is better than hatred? I bet you don't. Go ahead and explain why love is better than hatred.

If somebody proclaims that hate is better than love, but you believe that love is better than hate, who is right? Neither. They would be equal. The only way to claim that one is superior to the other is with some objective basis. If objective ideals are true, God necessarily exists.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

A claim you continually make and yet cannot actually support with anything other than your own say so.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Certainly evil exists. Acts which are detrimental to the survival as a species are evil. Many of these acts are so strongly disapproved of that they are considered crimes against humanity. We are social creatures and, in large part, have a reasonable level of empathy with others. Anything that causes hurt to one member engenders a response by the community as well. An extreme lack of empathy that allows, even encourages acts that harm other with no purpose are abhorrent to us as a species and we define that as evil. Murder, theft, rape (for the most part) are considered evil since they damage the community as well as the individual. We need a certain level of order to survive and get along together as a species. Our shared moral imperatives to survive as a species have helped make that possible. If you cannot understand that then I assure you that you don't need God, you just need a good dose of empathy. As I remember, that's kind of what Christ's message was to his disciples. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Excellent advice that most so-called followers of Christ don't follow.

This is self-refuting logic. You just said that morality is never objective. If all morality is subjective, whatever is evil is totally subjective. Are acts that are detrimental to survival evil subjectively or objectively? If it is subjectively evil, your point was moot. If it is objectively evil you refute yourself.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Certainly evil exists. Acts which are detrimental to the survival as a species are evil. Many of these acts are so strongly disapproved of that they are considered crimes against humanity. We are social creatures and, in large part, have a reasonable level of empathy with others. Anything that causes hurt to one member engenders a response by the community as well. An extreme lack of empathy that allows, even encourages acts that harm other with no purpose are abhorrent to us as a species and we define that as evil. Murder, theft, rape (for the most part) are considered evil since they damage the community as well as the individual. We need a certain level of order to survive and get along together as a species. Our shared moral imperatives to survive as a species have helped make that possible. If you cannot understand that then I assure you that you don't need God, you just need a good dose of empathy. As I remember, that's kind of what Christ's message was to his disciples. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Excellent advice that most so-called followers of Christ don't follow.

This is self-refuting logic. You just said that morality is never objective. If all morality is subjective, whatever is evil is totally subjective. Are acts that are detrimental to survival evil subjectively or objectively? If it is subjectively evil, your point was moot. If it is objectively evil you refute yourself.

Man, you just don't get it, do you? There is a huge difference in shared morality based on mutual benefit and an objective morality that is set in stone, existing somehow apart from the minds of those living. If you can't see that then the discussion is over. You just keep parroting that same stuff instead of even looking at what I said.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Certainly evil exists. Acts which are detrimental to the survival as a species are evil. Many of these acts are so strongly disapproved of that they are considered crimes against humanity. We are social creatures and, in large part, have a reasonable level of empathy with others. Anything that causes hurt to one member engenders a response by the community as well. An extreme lack of empathy that allows, even encourages acts that harm other with no purpose are abhorrent to us as a species and we define that as evil. Murder, theft, rape (for the most part) are considered evil since they damage the community as well as the individual. We need a certain level of order to survive and get along together as a species. Our shared moral imperatives to survive as a species have helped make that possible. If you cannot understand that then I assure you that you don't need God, you just need a good dose of empathy. As I remember, that's kind of what Christ's message was to his disciples. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Excellent advice that most so-called followers of Christ don't follow.

This is self-refuting logic. You just said that morality is never objective. If all morality is subjective, whatever is evil is totally subjective. Are acts that are detrimental to survival evil subjectively or objectively? If it is subjectively evil, your point was moot. If it is objectively evil you refute yourself.

Man, you just don't get it, do you? There is a huge difference in shared morality based on mutual benefit and an objective morality that is set in stone, existing somehow apart from the minds of those living. If you can't see that then the discussion is over. You just keep parroting that same stuff instead of even looking at what I said.

Whatever is beneficial would be subjective. Shared morality would be nothing more than a subjective tendency without any objective basis. Also, morality can be objective as part of our mental reality. There's no reason to believe that a non-mental reality exists anyway but that's a different discussion to be had.

(1) is survival an objective purpose or an objective tendency?

If it's an objective tendency, this says nothing about what we "ought" to do. It has no moral relevance.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Certainly evil exists. Acts which are detrimental to the survival as a species are evil. Many of these acts are so strongly disapproved of that they are considered crimes against humanity. We are social creatures and, in large part, have a reasonable level of empathy with others. Anything that causes hurt to one member engenders a response by the community as well. An extreme lack of empathy that allows, even encourages acts that harm other with no purpose are abhorrent to us as a species and we define that as evil. Murder, theft, rape (for the most part) are considered evil since they damage the community as well as the individual. We need a certain level of order to survive and get along together as a species. Our shared moral imperatives to survive as a species have helped make that possible. If you cannot understand that then I assure you that you don't need God, you just need a good dose of empathy. As I remember, that's kind of what Christ's message was to his disciples. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Excellent advice that most so-called followers of Christ don't follow.

This is self-refuting logic. You just said that morality is never objective. If all morality is subjective, whatever is evil is totally subjective. Are acts that are detrimental to survival evil subjectively or objectively? If it is subjectively evil, your point was moot. If it is objectively evil you refute yourself.

Man, you just don't get it, do you? There is a huge difference in shared morality based on mutual benefit and an objective morality that is set in stone, existing somehow apart from the minds of those living. If you can't see that then the discussion is over. You just keep parroting that same stuff instead of even looking at what I said.

Whatever is beneficial would be subjective. Shared morality would be nothing more than a subjective tendency without any objective basis. Also, morality can be objective as part of our mental reality. There's no reason to believe that a non-mental reality exists anyway but that's a different discussion to be had.

(1) is survival an objective purpose or an objective tendency?

If it's an objective tendency, this says nothing about what we "ought" to do. It has no moral relevance.

Dude, if you can't separate beneficial from harmful you have some serious problems I can't help you with. Something objective means not related to the thoughts or feelings of one person but separate and unaffected by those thoughts. The sun is shining is objective, stating an observed fact. The sunshine feels good is subjective, describing a feeling or evaluation based on the individuals preference for brigh, warm light. If you call something objective, it cannot just reside in the mind but should be observable and be the same no matter who views it. Nothing that resides purely in the mind of one man or a thousand men can be objective. Once more, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing with different words let me know and I'll just let you have the last word.

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

What a load of bovine fecal matter. Typical theist trying to conflate a bunch of stuff into the simple lack of belief in supernatural entities.

Take your pick. Which one is false?

Let's see. 1,.3,5,6, and 7. I will concede 4 since there are numerous unsolved crimes so those criminals are never held accountable except to their own consciences, if they have one.

Ok, let's begin at (1).

Do you believe that objective morality can exist without God?

Morality is never objective, it is subjective and resides in each individual. That said, there are things that we as societies consider right and wrong and have codified them into law. Most of these things are attitudes that have evolved over time in order to help insure the survival and the benefit of the entire species. God, the Abrahamic God, demands capital punishment for working on Sunday or 'rebelling' against your parents. That's not a good source for morals, even if it was divinely inspired and not the code of a primitive, almost barbaric, semi-nomadic tribe. So you see, your morals are no more objective than those of any atheist.

Well I just want to follow relate this back to your objection to point (1). If all evil is necessarily subjective, does evil *really exist*?

Certainly evil exists. Acts which are detrimental to the survival as a species are evil. Many of these acts are so strongly disapproved of that they are considered crimes against humanity. We are social creatures and, in large part, have a reasonable level of empathy with others. Anything that causes hurt to one member engenders a response by the community as well. An extreme lack of empathy that allows, even encourages acts that harm other with no purpose are abhorrent to us as a species and we define that as evil. Murder, theft, rape (for the most part) are considered evil since they damage the community as well as the individual. We need a certain level of order to survive and get along together as a species. Our shared moral imperatives to survive as a species have helped make that possible. If you cannot understand that then I assure you that you don't need God, you just need a good dose of empathy. As I remember, that's kind of what Christ's message was to his disciples. Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Excellent advice that most so-called followers of Christ don't follow.

This is self-refuting logic. You just said that morality is never objective. If all morality is subjective, whatever is evil is totally subjective. Are acts that are detrimental to survival evil subjectively or objectively? If it is subjectively evil, your point was moot. If it is objectively evil you refute yourself.

Man, you just don't get it, do you? There is a huge difference in shared morality based on mutual benefit and an objective morality that is set in stone, existing somehow apart from the minds of those living. If you can't see that then the discussion is over. You just keep parroting that same stuff instead of even looking at what I said.

Whatever is beneficial would be subjective. Shared morality would be nothing more than a subjective tendency without any objective basis. Also, morality can be objective as part of our mental reality. There's no reason to believe that a non-mental reality exists anyway but that's a different discussion to be had.

(1) is survival an objective purpose or an objective tendency?

If it's an objective tendency, this says nothing about what we "ought" to do. It has no moral relevance.

Dude, if you can't separate beneficial from harmful you have some serious problems I can't help you with. Something objective means not related to the thoughts or feelings of one person but separate and unaffected by those thoughts. The sun is shining is objective, stating an observed fact. The sunshine feels good is subjective, describing a feeling or evaluation based on the individuals preference for brigh, warm light. If you call something objective, it cannot just reside in the mind but should be observable and be the same no matter who views it. Nothing that resides purely in the mind of one man or a thousand men can be objective. Once more, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing with different words let me know and I'll just let you have the last word.

Benefiial to what end? If I believed that pain was better than well-being, harming myself would be beneficial. "Beneficial" can't have any objective meaning unless you're describing it as a means towards some end. So, (1) are humans beings means towards some end (do we have a purpose) and if not, can benefit be objective?

Objective refers to something that is indefinitely true. Nothing that resides in the mind can be objective? How about truth?

The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously asserting (2) morality is totally subjective.

If it's an objective tendency, this says nothing about what we "ought" to do. It has no moral relevance.

Dude, if you can't separate beneficial from harmful you have some serious problems I can't help you with. Something objective means not related to the thoughts or feelings of one person but separate and unaffected by those thoughts. The sun is shining is objective, stating an observed fact. The sunshine feels good is subjective, describing a feeling or evaluation based on the individuals preference for brigh, warm light. If you call something objective, it cannot just reside in the mind but should be observable and be the same no matter who views it. Nothing that resides purely in the mind of one man or a thousand men can be objective. Once more, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing with different words let me know and I'll just let you have the last word.

Benefiial to what end? If I believed that pain was better than well-being, harming myself would be beneficial. "Beneficial" can't have any objective meaning unless you're describing it as a means towards some end. So, (1) are humans beings means towards some end (do we have a purpose) and if not, can benefit be objective?

Objective refers to something that is indefinitely true. Nothing that resides in the mind can be objective? How about truth?

The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously asserting (2) morality is totally subjective.

Ok, if you want to harm yourself go ahead. It does have a negative effect on the community so it is considered a bad thing but it does no real harm to the rest of the community. If you harm another then you become a threat and you are considered to be evil and measures will be taken to stop you from doing it again. This is a shared morality based on mutual benefit, that is, survival and freedom from danger. Those could possibly be said to be objective since that is the goal of most living creatures, survival.

"The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously (you should check your spelling) asserting (2) morality is totally subjective." Dude, there is no problem. Because we all want to survive, thrive, be happy and enjoy our lives (except for a few emotionally damaged people) our mutual moralities dovetail and we share a great number of moral imperatives. That's how we live in groups bigger than families.

Truth, if it is truth, coincides with observable reality and facts. What we believe is not necessarily truth. There are people who still claim the earth is flat. It has been shown that is not the case but they still believe it and would call it truth despite the factual evidence we can present. Nothing that exists solely in the human mind can be perfectly objective since we are generally incapable of divorcing our emotions from our judgment. This is why we have courts, we have rules of evidence, we have the scientific method and peer review, to minimize the effects of our feelings and desires on the way things are done and to keep them as objective as possible.

If it's an objective tendency, this says nothing about what we "ought" to do. It has no moral relevance.

Dude, if you can't separate beneficial from harmful you have some serious problems I can't help you with. Something objective means not related to the thoughts or feelings of one person but separate and unaffected by those thoughts. The sun is shining is objective, stating an observed fact. The sunshine feels good is subjective, describing a feeling or evaluation based on the individuals preference for brigh, warm light. If you call something objective, it cannot just reside in the mind but should be observable and be the same no matter who views it. Nothing that resides purely in the mind of one man or a thousand men can be objective. Once more, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing with different words let me know and I'll just let you have the last word.

Benefiial to what end? If I believed that pain was better than well-being, harming myself would be beneficial. "Beneficial" can't have any objective meaning unless you're describing it as a means towards some end. So, (1) are humans beings means towards some end (do we have a purpose) and if not, can benefit be objective?

Objective refers to something that is indefinitely true. Nothing that resides in the mind can be objective? How about truth?

The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously asserting (2) morality is totally subjective.

Ok, if you want to harm yourself go ahead. It does have a negative effect on the community so it is considered a bad thing but it does no real harm to the rest of the community. If you harm another then you become a threat and you are considered to be evil and measures will be taken to stop you from doing it again. This is a shared morality based on mutual benefit, that is, survival and freedom from danger. Those could possibly be said to be objective since that is the goal of most living creatures, survival.

So are you unsure of whether or not survival is an objective purpose then? It can only be subjective or objective. Not knowing doesn't change that fact.

"The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously (you should check your spelling) asserting (2) morality is totally subjective." Dude, there is no problem. Because we all want to survive, thrive, be happy and enjoy our lives (except for a few emotionally damaged people) our mutual moralities dovetail and we share a great number of moral imperatives. That's how we live in groups bigger than families.

Truth, if it is truth, coincides with observable reality and facts. What we believe is not necessarily truth. There are people who still claim the earth is flat. It has been shown that is not the case but they still believe it and would call it truth despite the factual evidence we can present. Nothing that exists solely in the human mind can be perfectly objective since we are generally incapable of divorcing our emotions from our judgment. This is why we have courts, we have rules of evidence, we have the scientific method and peer review, to minimize the effects of our feelings and desires on the way things are done and to keep them as objective as possible.

'Truth' doesn't change depending on what we believe the truth is. That's why it's objective. Truth exists solely in the mind and is perfectly objective. Our lack of knowledge regarding what the truth actually is doesn't change it. The scientific method is grounded in absolute logic and truth.

If it's an objective tendency, this says nothing about what we "ought" to do. It has no moral relevance.

Dude, if you can't separate beneficial from harmful you have some serious problems I can't help you with. Something objective means not related to the thoughts or feelings of one person but separate and unaffected by those thoughts. The sun is shining is objective, stating an observed fact. The sunshine feels good is subjective, describing a feeling or evaluation based on the individuals preference for brigh, warm light. If you call something objective, it cannot just reside in the mind but should be observable and be the same no matter who views it. Nothing that resides purely in the mind of one man or a thousand men can be objective. Once more, if all you're going to do is repeat the same thing with different words let me know and I'll just let you have the last word.

Benefiial to what end? If I believed that pain was better than well-being, harming myself would be beneficial. "Beneficial" can't have any objective meaning unless you're describing it as a means towards some end. So, (1) are humans beings means towards some end (do we have a purpose) and if not, can benefit be objective?

Objective refers to something that is indefinitely true. Nothing that resides in the mind can be objective? How about truth?

The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously asserting (2) morality is totally subjective.

Ok, if you want to harm yourself go ahead. It does have a negative effect on the community so it is considered a bad thing but it does no real harm to the rest of the community. If you harm another then you become a threat and you are considered to be evil and measures will be taken to stop you from doing it again. This is a shared morality based on mutual benefit, that is, survival and freedom from danger. Those could possibly be said to be objective since that is the goal of most living creatures, survival.

So are you unsure of whether or not survival is an objective purpose then? It can only be subjective or objective. Not knowing doesn't change that fact.

"The problem is that you're asserting (1) morality is whatever helps achieve survival or social cohesion while simulatenously (you should check your spelling) asserting (2) morality is totally subjective." Dude, there is no problem. Because we all want to survive, thrive, be happy and enjoy our lives (except for a few emotionally damaged people) our mutual moralities dovetail and we share a great number of moral imperatives. That's how we live in groups bigger than families.

Truth, if it is truth, coincides with observable reality and facts. What we believe is not necessarily truth. There are people who still claim the earth is flat. It has been shown that is not the case but they still believe it and would call it truth despite the factual evidence we can present. Nothing that exists solely in the human mind can be perfectly objective since we are generally incapable of divorcing our emotions from our judgment. This is why we have courts, we have rules of evidence, we have the scientific method and peer review, to minimize the effects of our feelings and desires on the way things are done and to keep them as objective as possible.

'Truth' doesn't change depending on what we believe the truth is. That's why it's objective. Truth exists solely in the mind and is perfectly objective. Our lack of knowledge regarding what the truth actually is doesn't change it. The scientific method is grounded in absolute logic and truth.

1. I conceded that survival might be objective but it's subjective, just like most everything else concerning human beings. It also happens to be virtually universal with life forms so I momentarily considered it objective.

2. "Truth exists solely in the mind and is perfectly objective. Our lack of knowledge regarding what the truth actually is doesn't change it." This is a contradiction. If you don't know what truth actually is yet it exists solely in your mind you cannot possible call it objective. You could decide gravity was actually the air pushing you down instead of the mass of the Earth pulling on you but that would not be truth. Truth has to be external and verifiable or it cannot be objective and relevant to everyone at all times. Personal revelation is not Truth.

3. "The scientific method is grounded in absolute logic and truth." Not quite. It's based on observation of facts, proposed explanations for those facts, testing of those explanations, correcting those explanations if they prove to be insufficient to explain the observations, and repeat as necessary until the explanation covers all of the observed facts. I've never seen a single study done by any reputable scientist or scientific organization that used the word 'truth'.

Ok, so you have an objective morality. Tell me, where did it come from and how do you determine that it is objective?

(2) humans don't have free will. Everything we do is the result of deterministic chemical interactions in our brain.

(3) Everything including any human cause is inherently purposeless, valueless, and hopeless. Everything in our universe occurred for no reason (purposeless, valueless) and the heat death of the universe will inevitably occur and render survival impossible (hopeless).

(4) People who commit crimes against humanity and are not caught by the law are not accountable for their injustices.

(5) Logic and axioms are not absolute. They are emergent mental constructs that are subject to change.

(6) Ideals don't truly exist. Love is not better than hatred, intelligence is not better than ignorance, and truth is not better than non-truth.

(7) There is an infinite regression of preceding causes for everything that exists by chance.

Ben, I love your posts. I will take slight issue with a couple of your points, however. Others I agree with.

1. This may be true. The ethical construct of evil can still exist in the minds of humans. Evil will not exist as an objective reality, only as a subjective value judgment. There will only be punishment for those that are caught. Life without the justice of God is similar to a lucid dream...you can do anything as long as you are not caught.''2. Free will may still exist. Determinism for the realm of the will is not proven by God's nonexistence.3. The human cause without God is purposeless and valueless, in an objective sense. Human lives can still have purpose and value subjectively, given such purpose and value by a code of law enacted by a government. The lives of those in the third world will be mostly meaningless. The lives of people in the free world are not without hope, but perhaps most people's lives are without hope.4. This is true. Anyone not caught committing an injustice will get away with their crimes. This is particularly distasteful. The argument can be made that without God, psychokillers and genocidal politicians are merely part of the evolutionary history of mankind. No ethical value judgment regarding the relation of their actions to truth and justice can be made.5. I will have to hear your expanded argument on this point. Presently, I am not sure this is true. I could be convinced otherwise.6. This may be true. Certain philosophers argue that hatred is better than love, etc.7. Please expand this argument. I am not sure what you are trying to say.

1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.